Habj wrote:
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a
discussion has arisen if it
would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose
actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting
re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big
problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be
possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is
a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this
system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a
predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get
tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from
admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the
argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best,
Hanna
I think you should just do what you guys think is best in your current
situation. Right now, german and dutch wikipedia are working this way,
with a renewal per year.
On meta, inactive sysops are removed and we suggest "inappropriate"
admins to be removed after a year as well.
So, in all three cases, some admins are regularly removed. Usually, it
is not a problem because
* there is no urgency (as there might be in case of an abusing sysop)
* there is no dispute (as the request can point out to a voting page
where a steward can check if the removal is legitimate).
So, it is not a tiring job for stewards.
As for "being allowed", my best answer is "this is your community to
decide what you feel is best".
Best
Ant